Top Law Schools

waterbug wrote:Thanks for all the good answers!

1. Where are the best places to get old exams?

2. How do you feel about using old outlines and where would you find those?

1. The library has a good selection of old exams which the prof's have provided. For those prof's who don't have any listed on Tarlton's website, or if the ones listed are a decade old, the best place to get some info is 2L's and 3L's.

2. This is a question that I imagine is going to have a lot of different opinions and answers based on who answers. I personally found them to be pretty helpful overall, really helpful in some classes and not that useful in others. You are going to get a good selection of old outlines from your small section mentor.

You just need to remember to not treat old outlines like a bible. The information on them can be wrong, out of date, just one interpretation of the law, etc. Don't be afraid to mold them to something that is easier for you to work with.

waterbug wrote:Thanks for all the good answers!

1. Where are the best places to get old exams?

2. How do you feel about using old outlines and where would you find those?

1. Yeah, the tarlton website. Some professors will dig up others to just give to the class.

2. Older students, and organizations have outline banks as well. Your mentor should give you three or four for each class. I personally made my own outlines and just used old ones as a guide. Plenty of people just used old ones though and did as well or better than I did. Key thing is what was mentioned above, namely that you can't just depend on the outline to be completely correct. All that matters in the end is that you have to understand the material better than other students to get better grades. Whatever method helps you do this is the right one.

I skimmed the thread again to make sure it wasn't asked so forgive me if this is a repeat, but:

Any current or former students have any opinions/thoughts/exam tips on the following professors?

Anderson (Torts)
Albright (Civ Pro)
Franklin (Con Law)
Einhorn (LR&W)

BigZuck wrote:I skimmed the thread again to make sure it wasn't asked so forgive me if this is a repeat, but:

Any current or former students have any opinions/thoughts/exam tips on the following professors?

Anderson (Torts)
Albright (Civ Pro)
Franklin (Con Law)
Einhorn (LR&W)

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &start=125

some information about Albright on that thread...i think the poster who asked had the same schedule as you - you could probably message him/her

hth

BigZuck wrote:I skimmed the thread again to make sure it wasn't asked so forgive me if this is a repeat, but:

Any current or former students have any opinions/thoughts/exam tips on the following professors?

Anderson (Torts)
Albright (Civ Pro)
Franklin (Con Law)
Einhorn (LR&W)

Anderson is very traditional and every class will be 100% cold call. READ THE NOTES IN THE CASEBOOK. Those things are a gold mine and he pulls exam questions from them. My exam, and I think he does this every year, was part multiple choice and 1 essay question. He comes across as a rather stern guy but he is actually very approachable outside of class and rather funny as well. He will throw a kegger at his house for y'all sometime in the semester.

BigZuck wrote:I skimmed the thread again to make sure it wasn't asked so forgive me if this is a repeat, but:

Any current or former students have any opinions/thoughts/exam tips on the following professors?

Anderson (Torts)
Albright (Civ Pro)
Franklin (Con Law)
Einhorn (LR&W)

Everyone I know that had Albright thought she was an awful teacher.

nonprofit-prophet wrote:

BigZuck wrote:I skimmed the thread again to make sure it wasn't asked so forgive me if this is a repeat, but:

Any current or former students have any opinions/thoughts/exam tips on the following professors?

Anderson (Torts)
Albright (Civ Pro)
Franklin (Con Law)
Einhorn (LR&W)

Everyone I know that had Albright thought she was an awful teacher.

I've heard this as well.

BigZuck wrote:I skimmed the thread again to make sure it wasn't asked so forgive me if this is a repeat, but:

Any current or former students have any opinions/thoughts/exam tips on the following professors?

Anderson (Torts)
Albright (Civ Pro)
Franklin (Con Law)
Einhorn (LR&W)

Einhorn is extremely nice and smart (but not pretentious at all) and will bend over backward to help you. No idea how she determines grades, but her class was good and she relates well to students. Didn't have the others.

Slightly related warning to all incoming 1Ls: Don't buy the ALWD citation guide for LRW. Just get the Bluebook and use it exclusively, and ignore any academics who encourage you to use anything else. Many a 1L has wasted time and money on the wrong thing.

Good luck, everyone! Seeing this is making me a bit nostalgic. Feel free to post your profs here and I (we) will be happy to share what insight we have.

Sweet guys, thanks. Any thoughts on Franklin (or more on the others) is always appreciated!

Also, is it ok to buy books now? I'm not going to read them now or anything, just thinking about time for shipping, etc. Should I be buying either new books or used books I can actually see first to make sure no excessive underlining or is it ok to roll the dice and buy whatever is cheapest on Amazon? Any thoughts on renting or is that a bad idea because you can't underline in them?

Hey all,

This thread has been great, and has made me optimistic about staying in Austin (I worked here for two years before LS and definitely don't want to move; I just assumed everyone wanted to stay so jobs would be crazy competitive).

Anyone have advice about these professors? If this isn't the place lemme know but all my other questions have been covered really well:

Chesney (Con), Einhorn (LRW), Mullenix (Civ Pro), Stapleton (Torts)

LOL Mullenix. I have many thoughts on her.

If your class is anything like mine, she'll try to freak you out the first day. She calls up two unsuspecting 1Ls who are already anxious about their first day of law school and makes them do some kind of intake interview with her. I think the point is supposed to be that when you're interviewing a new client, all you need is facts, so if you're one of the unlucky ones, just keep focused on the facts and don't pretend you're already familiar with civ pro concepts like personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, or whatever else you might have heard of. Of course the real point is to intimidate everyone, teach everyone that they don't know anything, and set the hard-ass tone for the rest of the class. (My year, a guy had a seizure while she was berating him.)

She does a system where everyone is assigned one or two cases to cover in extreme depth and basically gives you license to ignore the rest. You have to figure out a way to motivate yourself to do the other reading. Start using the Glannon Guide and the E&E right away to learn the basic concepts, then read the cases (and focus on the facts when you get called on!). Her casebook is kind of useless for learning, since it contains only cases and statutes, no explanation or background.

She doesn't release any model exams; she makes you buy them. I do not understand what the point of a multiple choice civ pro test is, but she clings to it. It's an absurdly hard test, and the curve is brutal (I think I heard my year that the difference between an A- and a B was like 3 questions). I think my main mistake in that class was not relying on supplements from Day 1, and focusing too much on my own assigned cases (for which I was on call for three days) and subordinating everything else. Your mentors will keep you up to date on what she's been doing with her classes and exams since I had her in 2010, and they might have outlines as well. Remember, all that matters is the exam, not how many facts you remember from your assigned cases. You're going to feel like shit at some point, but don't let it distract you from the real goal -- and remember, she does it to everyone.

Believe it or not, she's a very nice person in real life, but while you're in her class, she has her persona and sticks to it. I encourage you to go say hi to her after your semester is over.

As for the others, I've not had them (except Einhorn). Chesney seems to be very popular and student-friendly. Franklin is a hard-core feminist scholar who's married to Fishkin, who is awesome. I'd guess she'll be a very liberal con law prof (equal protection, due process, etc.). I think this is her first year teaching con law, yes?

Books: I've never had a problem renting from Amazon, but if the policies say you can't underline, I wouldn't bother. If you can find them used, great, but Amazon tends to have better deals across the board. I know some people who went to extreme lengths never to pay for books, but this seemed like a waste of time that could be spent studying. Keep in mind that if you have to buy new (from anywhere), the co-op will often buy them back at good prices, in cash.

philosoraptor wrote:LOL Mullenix. I have many thoughts on her.

If your class is anything like mine, she'll try to freak you out the first day. She calls up two unsuspecting 1Ls who are already anxious about their first day of law school and makes them do some kind of intake interview with her. I think the point is supposed to be that when you're interviewing a new client, all you need is facts, so if you're one of the unlucky ones, just keep focused on the facts and don't pretend you're already familiar with civ pro concepts like personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, or whatever else you might have heard of. Of course the real point is to intimidate everyone, teach everyone that they don't know anything, and set the hard-ass tone for the rest of the class. (My year, a guy had a seizure while she was berating him.)

She does a system where everyone is assigned one or two cases to cover in extreme depth and basically gives you license to ignore the rest. You have to figure out a way to motivate yourself to do the other reading. Start using the Glannon Guide and the E&E right away to learn the basic concepts, then read the cases (and focus on the facts when you get called on!). Her casebook is kind of useless for learning, since it contains only cases and statutes, no explanation or background.

She doesn't release any model exams; she makes you buy them. I do not understand what the point of a multiple choice civ pro test is, but she clings to it. It's an absurdly hard test, and the curve is brutal (I think I heard my year that the difference between an A- and a B was like 3 questions). I think my main mistake in that class was not relying on supplements from Day 1, and focusing too much on my own assigned cases (for which I was on call for three days) and subordinating everything else. Your mentors will keep you up to date on what she's been doing with her classes and exams since I had her in 2010, and they might have outlines as well. Remember, all that matters is the exam, not how many facts you remember from your assigned cases. You're going to feel like shit at some point, but don't let it distract you from the real goal -- and remember, she does it to everyone.

Believe it or not, she's a very nice person in real life, but while you're in her class, she has her persona and sticks to it. I encourage you to go say hi to her after your semester is over.

As for the others, I've not had them (except Einhorn). Chesney seems to be very popular and student-friendly. Franklin is a hard-core feminist scholar who's married to Fishkin, who is awesome. I'd guess she'll be a very liberal con law prof (equal protection, due process, etc.). I think this is her first year teaching con law, yes?

Books: I've never had a problem renting from Amazon, but if the policies say you can't underline, I wouldn't bother. If you can find them used, great, but Amazon tends to have better deals across the board. I know some people who went to extreme lengths never to pay for books, but this seemed like a waste of time that could be spent studying. Keep in mind that if you have to buy new (from anywhere), the co-op will often buy them back at good prices, in cash.

I think this is Franklin's third year teaching con law.

I've heard that the Dean is forcing Mullenix to do essay exams.

Any thoughts on Schiess (LRW) and McGarity (Torts)?

philosoraptor wrote:Info on Mullenix

So this special focus on one case...since tests are graded blindly doesn't this actually not matter?

romanticegotist wrote:

philosoraptor wrote:Info on Mullenix

So this special focus on one case...since tests are graded blindly doesn't this actually not matter?

The thing with her old exam was that it was 100% multiple choice (so you couldn't bring up cases) and it didn't ask about cases. The other thing with her exam was that it included concepts we didn't learn (erie and res judicata) and involved questions on discretionary concepts (as in, the judge could pick any multiple choice answer and not get reversed on appeal). It was a completely meaningless exam.

Apparently, the new dean heard about how awful it was and decided it was time for her to stop being lazy.

romanticegotist wrote:

philosoraptor wrote:Info on Mullenix

So this special focus on one case...since tests are graded blindly doesn't this actually not matter?

Correct. Perhaps I should have stated it a bit more emphatically: It absolutely does not matter how you do on your in-class interrogation. Come to class, don't break any of her attendance/tardiness rules, and focus on the exam. That's all that counts.

Schiess (LRW)

Schiess is excellent -- had him for transactional drafting. Probably the most "scholarly" of the LRW profs. He was never a litigator, but he's been teaching LRW for a long time and clearly knows his stuff well.

I've heard that the Dean is forcing Mullenix to do essay exams.

This is great news if it happens. For civ pro, you really need space to explain what's going on and attack a whole problem, not just focus on minutiae in MC questions with annoyingly long and complex fact patterns (as I recall).

philosoraptor wrote:

romanticegotist wrote:
So this special focus on one case...since tests are graded blindly doesn't this actually not matter?

Correct. Perhaps I should have stated it a bit more emphatically: It absolutely does not matter how you do on your in-class interrogation. Come to class, don't break any of her attendance/tardiness rules, and focus on the exam. That's all that counts.

Awesome, thanks for clarifying. I figured that most of that stuff is smoke-and-mirrors BS designed to waylay people who don't know better.

romanticegotist wrote:

philosoraptor wrote:

romanticegotist wrote:
So this special focus on one case...since tests are graded blindly doesn't this actually not matter?

Correct. Perhaps I should have stated it a bit more emphatically: It absolutely does not matter how you do on your in-class interrogation. Come to class, don't break any of her attendance/tardiness rules, and focus on the exam. That's all that counts.

Awesome, thanks for clarifying. I figured that most of that stuff is smoke-and-mirrors BS designed to waylay people who don't know better.

That's actually true for every single 1L class. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE EXAM. Never forget that and don't turn into one of those morons who thinks that just because they looked like superman during cold calls that they'll be getting an A.

blackmooncreeping wrote:

romanticegotist wrote:

philosoraptor wrote:

romanticegotist wrote:
So this special focus on one case...since tests are graded blindly doesn't this actually not matter?

Correct. Perhaps I should have stated it a bit more emphatically: It absolutely does not matter how you do on your in-class interrogation. Come to class, don't break any of her attendance/tardiness rules, and focus on the exam. That's all that counts.

Awesome, thanks for clarifying. I figured that most of that stuff is smoke-and-mirrors BS designed to waylay people who don't know better.

That's actually true for every single 1L class. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE EXAM. Never forget that and don't turn into one of those morons who thinks that just because they looked like superman during cold calls that they'll be getting an A.

THANK YOU BASED TLS. I mean I'm pretty lazy so any excuse to focus on the fewest amount of things possible is a boon for my mental state.

Have:

Franklin (Con Law)
Anderson (Torts)
Silver (Civ Pro)
Youngdale (LRW)

Thoughts anyone?

nonprofit-prophet wrote:I think this is Franklin's third year teaching con law.

Lol, I'm getting old. Maybe I'm confusing her with Fishkin.

blackmooncreeping wrote:

romanticegotist wrote:

philosoraptor wrote:

romanticegotist wrote:
So this special focus on one case...since tests are graded blindly doesn't this actually not matter?

Correct. Perhaps I should have stated it a bit more emphatically: It absolutely does not matter how you do on your in-class interrogation. Come to class, don't break any of her attendance/tardiness rules, and focus on the exam. That's all that counts.

Awesome, thanks for clarifying. I figured that most of that stuff is smoke-and-mirrors BS designed to waylay people who don't know better.

That's actually true for every single 1L class. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE EXAM. Never forget that and don't turn into one of those morons who thinks that just because they looked like superman during cold calls that they'll be getting an A.

I actually disagree with this.

First, my 5 credit small section 1L class was contracts and the prof told us on day one that he took participation into account.

Second, I've heard from friends that professors moved their grade up due to participation. Professors grade everything blind, then they get their grades back from the administration with names attached, then they submit the final grades back to the administration. I've definitely heard from friends that profs told them they had gotten a pretty good exam grade and they were on the margin between an A- and an A. The prof moved em up for their participation.

So theres a curve, but professors can be flexible and move people up a +/- grade based on participation. Now, that's for HELPFUL participation. Don't pose random hypotheticals or waste people's time.

That's actually a good point about the small section class. I completely forgot about that, seems like a lifetime ago when I was in mine in the fall. Now that I think about it participation did matter in that class. As long as you had a basic grasp of the case when called upon in every other class you were ok. I just saw way to many of my friends spend far too much time prepping for class instead of focusing on the exam, especially come the end of the semester. Never forget that far and away the most important thing is the exam and 99% of your efforts need to be directed at that vs. class discussion.

nonprofit-prophet wrote: I actually disagree with this.

First, my 5 credit small section 1L class was contracts and the prof told us on day one that he took participation into account.

Second, I've heard from friends that professors moved their grade up due to participation. Professors grade everything blind, then they get their grades back from the administration with names attached, then they submit the final grades back to the administration. I've definitely heard from friends that profs told them they had gotten a pretty good exam grade and they were on the margin between an A- and an A. The prof moved em up for their participation.

So theres a curve, but professors can be flexible and move people up a +/- grade based on participation. Now, that's for HELPFUL participation. Don't pose random hypotheticals or waste people's time.

Sounds like being a sociable non-asshole who makes a good faith effort to keep up with what's happening in class is a good thing to strive for. I, for one, am amazed at this development.

WokeUpInACar wrote:Have:

Franklin (Con Law)
Anderson (Torts)
Silver (Civ Pro)
Youngdale (LRW)

Thoughts anyone?

I gave some thoughts on Anderson in the Class of 2016 page.